Posted on 08/28/2005 12:07:17 AM PDT by RadicalSon2
As the American people wise up about the war in Iraq, and the shifting rationale behind it, they aren't letting the press off the hook.
Good for them.
As President Bush led the nation into the invasion of Iraq, the evidence he cited as justification for the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime was too often echoed by news organizations that holstered the skepticism they customarily bring to their work. As a result, any doubts about the wisdom of the war focused on strategy rather than factual truth.
Hussein's purported possession of weapons of mass destruction was accepted as established fact. His alleged attempt to build nuclear bombs was reported without the qualifying statements it deserved. And members of the Bush administration were given greater credibility than those who remained skeptical, including United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.
The public now knows that. It says so in a new Gallup poll commissioned by the McCormick Tribune Foundation of Chicago.
Sixty-one percent of the poll's respondents said the press keeps them well informed on military and national security issues. That might not sound so bad, but 79 percent gave the same response to the same question in 1999.
More telling is that more than 60 percent of people criticized the news media and the government for failing to inform them adequately before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The problem wasn't that news organizations uniformly expressed support for an invasion -- some did and some did not -- but that they almost universally confirmed the factual basis for it. Since that factual basis has been found to have been untrue, some of the larger organizations responsible, notably including the New York Times, have publicly acknowledged their errors.
Many smaller organizations, however, served as an amen chorus for the drumbeat of news about how dangerous Iraq was. This page, for example, opposed the invasion itself, but spoke uncritically of Saddam Hussein's dangers, at least to his neighbors.
It turned out Hussein was a paper tiger, in more ways than one. His menace to the world existed only on paper -- and in the nation's newspapers.
Most Americans apparently have learned that lesson. Let's hope most of the news organizations responsible for it have. -- J.F.
In my best English accent "By Jove, I think you've got it".
"And there were many reasons NOT to go."
Yeah, but they had all been used before -- by Neville Chamberlain.
Why should I care?
Both questions are rhetorical.
Any writer who bases his argument on the premise that the press, collectively speaking, supported Dubya in the war is making a Wile E. Coyote-esque run off the cliff of reality, churning his arms and legs like there's still solid ground underneath him.
All help will be appreciated.
It is not reporting at all; it is wishful thinking.
Milosevic?
Probably the biggest military blunder in the last 500 years.
That little fiasco empowered whom?
I realize this question can be more easily answered for post-Yugoslavia, but... I'm in the mood for a little macabre humor this morning.
Care to make a list for our continuing education?
Reasons for NOT going into Iraq (that make sense) 101.
Have at it.
Yeah sure. If you were the President of USA in 1938 you would send 10 million American soldiers across the ocean. Or if you were the leader of France or UK you would persuade the nations still recovering from WWI and Great Depression to fight.
Sure it would be very clever thing to do and you would be able to do it. (SARCASM)
I assure you that Saddam Hussain was NOT capable of making much conquest. He was not even able to control Kurdistan in his own country. He was no more a Second Hitler than Noriega was.
But you are free to think and say whatever you want. Enjoy your freedom.
His army was doing quite well. Under the 3 months bombardment by the most powerful military alliance in history, Serbs lost 12 (low estimate) to 14 (hight estimate). And it was while facing Muslim Fifth Column supplied from abroad.
In the end it was Russia which arranged the compromise agreement with NATO. Serbian army was not defeated.
Later West broke the agreement and betrayed Russians/Serbs but you cannot see it as a military victory!
OK, I will explain. (I wish I were paid for doing it).
The chief reason for not going to Iraq was that Iraqi regime (authoritarian secularist nationalism) was the expression of natural equilibrium for the entity composed of three disparate societies and located in the middle of Muslim world.
That is why USA under Ronald Reagan and Western Europe and Soviet Union supported Baath regime. This regime was the bulwark against Islamism and main hope for modernization of the region.
You see, democracy is a form of luxury, you can afford it when you are advanced and prosperous, either when you have large educated middle class or many slaves to support you (like in Athenian democracy). In a messy situations like XXc Iraq or European "Dark" Ages the monarchical or dictatorial power was the only VIABLE solution (with the exception of small rich city states based on commerce like Florence or Novgorod).
Now there are two most likely outcomes:
If dogmatic Wilsonian approach is followed the three divergent loose cannons will be released. Shiite South with strong ties to Iran and subversive impact on Gulf emirates (with large Shiite population), practically independent Kurdistan which will be on collision course with Turkey (Turkish south east is Kurdish), and Sunni middle in control of huge capital city without natural resources, trained in war and politics, bent on revange.
The second possible outcome is RESTORING of the equilibrium by bringing back secular dictatorship disguised by intense "democratic" rhetoric.
After the Iraqi war in 1991 saddam wasn’t going to take over anymore land. But the real question should be was Saddam killing Americans or not after 1991? If he was killing Americans then did we have a right to take him out?
Huh?
Was Saddam killing Americans or not? It is a simple question.
If he was did we have a right to take him out?
And that makes the police action somehow more justified because Democrats voted for it as well?
When?
If he was did we have a right to take him out?
Are we talking about a right or about sound reasons for the war. It is not the same thing.
When?”
How long have you been to freerepublic? Since May 1999 and you are not lost.
There are threads all over Freerepublic even on this thread that shows that Saddam had an on going attack to kill Americans. We are now learning with Able Danger (and a Czech source) showing he helped financed 911, by depositing a large sum of money into Mohammed Atta’s account before 911.
” Are we talking about a right or about sound reasons for the war. It is not the same thing. “
Both. We had the right and obligation to take him out.
Did he have plans? Even if he did, you said earlier that he was killing Americans. When?
We are now learning with Able Danger (and a Czech source) showing he helped financed 911, by depositing a large sum of money into Mohammed Atta’s account before 911.
Did he pay for flight lessons or paper cutters?
He put money into Mohammed Atta’s account for Atta to pay the services and goods he needed.
Post number 33 shows a lot of links between one terrorist organization and saddam. Saddam used a number of terrorist organizations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.